>> then why were some people on the left pushing so hard to shift control >> of the drones from the CIA to the Pentagon?
Robert Naiman wrote: > There's no necessary contradiction. Moving them from the CIA to the > military, from the point of view of groups like Human Rights Watch, is > a means to an end. The end is greater transparency and compliance with > international law. There's no guarantee that moving them from the CIA > to the military will result in greater transparency and compliance > with international law. There is reason to believe that it would, but > not reasons for ironclad belief. It depends on choices made in the > future. Therefore, moving them from the CIA to the military isn't > *intrinsically* a good thing. It's a good thing if it leads to greater > transparency and compliance with international law. History shows that > CIA control isn't the only way to conduct an illegal and unaccountable > policy. That's why there can't be any applause for the move until its > consequences can be judged. is this kind of iffy strategy (if that's the word) worth spending scarce political capital on? Why not do something to shame Obama for being such a Nixon? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
